You are here

Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al.

At a Glance

Date Filed:

January 31, 2008

Current Status

The remedial process ordered by the district court has begun. Parties are working with the court monitor to develop the "immediate reforms" as described in the court's August 2013 remedial order. In addition, on May 15, 2018, the court-appointed Facilitator filed his recommendations regarding the Joint Remedial Process as ordered by the court, additional reforms developed through input from those communities most directly affected by stop and frisk. Beginning in August 2018, the court has begun issuing new orders for potential reforms coming out of the Joint Remedial Process recommendations.

Counsel:

Co-Counsel

Beldock, Levine and Hoffman, and Covington & Burling LLP

Client(s)

Dasaw Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis

December 17, 2014

Case Description

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the federal class action lawsuit Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. against the City of New York to challenge the New York Police Department’s practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City residents. The named plaintiffs in the case – David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis – represent the thousands of primarily Black and Latino New Yorkers who have been stopped without any cause on the way to work or home from school, in front of their house, or just walking down the street.

In a historic ruling on August 12, 2013, following a nine-week trial, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops. Under a new administration, the City agreed to drop its appeal and begin the joint remedial process ordered by the court. After attempts by the police unions to derail the process, the United States Court of Appeals at last allowed the City to officially withdraw its appeal in October 2014, and the joint reform process – in which all stakeholders, from community groups to the NYPD, come together to agree on solutions – is being mapped out.

The Floyd case stems from CCR's landmark racial profiling case, Daniels, et al. v. City of New York, et al., which led to the disbanding of the infamous Street Crime Unit and a settlement with the City in 2003. The Daniels settlement agreement required the NYPD to maintain a written racial profiling policy that complies with the United States and New York State constitutions and to provide stop-and-frisk data to CCR on a quarterly basis from 2003 through 2007. However, an analysis of the data revealed that the NYPD had continued to engage in suspicionless and racially pretextual stop and frisks, and so CCR filed Floyd.

Floyd focuses not only on the lack of any reasonable suspicion to make these stops, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also on the obvious racial disparities in who is stopped and searched by the NYPD – approximately 85 percent of those stopped are Black and Latino, even though these two groups make up only 52 percent of the city’s population – which constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landmark case, Floyd continues CCR’s founding tradition of working with grassroots groups and directly affected communities to fight for racial justice.

Case Timeline

January 11, 2019

Monitor submits ninth status report

January 11, 2019

Monitor submits ninth status report

The court-appointed monitor submits his ninth status report as required by the remedial order. He finds large numbers of unreported and unconstitutional stops and continued failure of supervisors to effectively monitor their subordinate officers’ stop activity.

Related Files

Court orders NYPD pilot program to electronically record all civilian encounters

July 19, 2018

Court orders NYPD pilot program to electronically record all civilian encounters

The order issued by the court requires the NYPD to electronically record low-level police-citizen encounters, otherwise known as “Level 1 and 2 investigative encounters”, as part of a pilot program aimed at measuring the relative benefits and costs of this change. This reform was born out of community input and was recommended by the court-appointed facilitator of the Joint Remedial Process. After the pilot, the court-appointed monitor will report to the court on whether the program should be expanded or terminated.

Monitor Peter Zimroth submits new stop-and-frisk training materials that will be used to train all NYPD patrol officers, sergeants, and lieutenants over the next 18 months to 2 years, and which were developed with input from plaintiffs under the federal court order in Floyd to correct the legally incorrect training officers received for many years.

CCR submits a court filing highlighting ongoing racial disparities in the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices in response to the first report by the court-appointed monitor analyzing racial disparities in the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices, filed on May 30, 2017. Attorneys and their statistical experts say the monitor’s report misrepresents, and plays down, those disparities.

Related Files

Floyd Monitor Peter Zimroth submits three documents to Judge Torres for approval, along with a cover letter: a new UF-250 stop form containing a new narrative section among other changes; accompanying instructions to the form; and a draft internal NYPD order regarding two NYPD patrol guides related to stops.

Court-appointed monitor Peter Zimroth submits his second status report on the work done during the remedial process thus far in regards to the August 2013 court orders in Floyd. Our team submitted a letter to the court addressing several parts of the monitor's report.

Related Files

The court-appointed monitor and his team launch a new website containing resources and updates about the remedial process in Floyd, including information about the community-driven Joint Remedial Process overseen by the facilitator, Ariel Belen. The website address is: http://nypdmonitor.org.

On August 7, 2015, the court-appointed monitor overseeing reforms of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices submits new policies on racial profiling and street encounters for the judge’s approval. The policies were negotiated with all parties to the case and, once approved, will be binding on the NYPD. CCR and co-counsel also write to the court to reserve our right to seek further improvements to the stop receipt and measures requiring the NYPD to document lower-level police encounters. On August 23, 2015, the court approves the submissions.

As part of the immediate reform process ordered in Floyd, the court-appointed monitor submits for approval a set of revised training materials for NYPD recruits to be used at the Police Academy. Our team moved quickly to revise the materials so they can be used with the current class of recruits as they enter the legal training portion of their classes. The new training materials accurately teach the constitutional limits on stop and frisk and explicitly prohibit racial profiling.

Memo on reforms and constitutional standards read and posted at police stations

February 23, 2015

Memo on reforms and constitutional standards read and posted at police stations

The monitor submits, and Judge Torres approves, the text of a memo that is read by the NYPD at 10 consecutive roll calls in all precincts detailing the reforms ordered by Judge Scheindlin in Floyd. The memo is also posted in police stations and provided to all officers. The document details the constitutional standards governing stop and frisks, explicitly prohibits racial profiling by police, orders officers to include a narrative explanation for stops in their UF250 forms, and orders the start of a pilot program outfitting police officers with body cameras.

After the police unions appeal the district court's denial of their motion to intervene in Floyd, we file briefs opposing the appeals, as do the City of New York and plaintiffs in the Ligon case. In addition, four separate amicus briefs are filed in support of our brief, from law enforcement groups of color; the Public Advocate of the City of New York and members of the City Council; dozens of community groups across the city; and a group of law professors from across the country.

Southern District Court Judge Analisa Torres issues an opinion and order denying the police unions' motions to intervene in the case, finding they have no standing and that their motions were untimely given how long the case had been going on. In addition, Judge Torres grants the jointly proposed modification of the district court's August 2013 remedial decision.

Press Release

Related Files

City of New York announces agreement with plaintiffs and plans to drop appeal

January 30, 2014

City of New York announces agreement with plaintiffs and plans to drop appeal

The City announces an agreement with plaintiffs in exchange for placing a three-year time limit on the court-appointed monitor. The City agrees to drop its appeal and files a motion in the Second Circuit for remand to the district court.

The Second Circuit issues an order holding en banc motions and unions' motions to intervene in abeyance in order to give parties an opportunity to request returning to the district court to explore a resolution of the case.

After the City files its request for a stay with the district court, plaintiffs file their response, including declarations from Communities United for Police Reform, City Council members, and Plaintiff David Ourlicht.

In a landmark 198-page decision, Judge Shira Scheindlin finds by a preponderance of the evidence at trial that the City of New York has engaged in a years-long policy and practice of unconstitutional and racially discriminatory stop and frisks. In her second opinion, she appoints an independent monitor to oversee the development and implementation of a series of reforms to the polices, and orders a "Joint Remedial Process" involving direct input from affected communities and other stakeholders into what additional reforms will be necessary.

The DOJ's brief specifically supports broad injunctive relief on behalf of plaintiffs, should the court find the City liable and order injunctive relief, including the appointment of an independent monitor.

Related Files

Our brief outlines the injunctive relief requested if we win our case at trial. Our request includes oversight by an independent monitor and the proposition of a "joint remedial process" involving direct input into potential reforms from communities that directly feel the impact of the policies.

The Judge's ruling makes clear that the focus of this case is on whether NYPD practices are constitutional, not whether they are "successful" policies for fighting crime. She forbids the City's expert from testifying as to whether NYPD practices reduce crime. She does allow the City's expert to challenge parts of the analysis done by the plaintiffs' expert.

The Judge's ruling allows anyone unconstitutionally stopped by the NYPD in New York City since January 2005 to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Judge Scheindlin notes in her decision: “Suspicionless stops should never occur. Defendants’ cavalier attitude towards the prospect of a ‘widespread practice of suspicionless stops’ displays a deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers’ most fundamental constitutional rights.”

The judge holds that with one exception, Professor Fagan may testify about all of his 4th and 14th Amendment analyses at trial. The one exception is that he may not offer any conclusions as to the constitutionality of stops where the officer listed "other" as the basis for the stop on his stop-and-frisk UF-250 form.

The City disputes plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey Fagan's conclusions in his report and moves to exclude his testimony in the case. We oppose. In addition to extensive briefing, on March 8, 2012, defendants and plaintiffs present oral arguments on the City's Daubert challenge, including testimony from plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey Fagan.

Related Files

We move to certify as a class all those unconstitutionally stopped by the NYPD since January 31, 2005. The Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus of the New York City Council (BLAC) as well as Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) also file amicus briefs in support of the motion.

In her 86-page decision, Judge Scheindlin concludes that the statistical evidence we submitted raises factual questions “as to whether the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies have had a disparate impact in the form of a widespread pattern of race-based stops,” and that supposed recent corrective action by the NYPD is not enough at this point “to negate the inference that intentional discrimination was the City’s standard operating procedure.”

Scheindlin grants summary judgment regarding one of the stops of lead plaintiff David Floyd. We immediately file a motion for reconsideration, disputing evidence presented by the City in their motion for summary judgment.

CCR submits Plaintiffs' Expert Report from Columbia Law Professor Jeffrey Fagan to the court. Fagan's analysis of six years of NYPD data backs up CCR's claims of racially biased and unconstitutional stops by New York City police.